The research cited does not make any statements about improved recall of facts based on note taking (handwritten vs typed). I have found EEG studies [0] that do not actually measure a learning outcome, studies on letter recognition [1], and calendar apps vs physical calendar [2].
Citing studies which do not prove the thesis is actually worse than citing nothing at all. The fact that there is not a cited study showing clear memorization outcomes of typing vs handwriting, I would actually conclude the opposite of what the article is trying to say.
More generally I think the idea that "The article does at least attempt to cite some research" is very problematic if the cited papers don't actually show what the article is stating.
As a person with ADHD, that slower, deliberate nature goes against everything my brain wants. Even when learning from video, certain speakers seem too slow, and my brain prefers speedy information intake otherwise it wanders off to another universe.
I think my brain has a pretty wide bus, but no guarantees it has the next gen processor, and definitely no ECC memory, information gets corrupted and lost all the time. That's ADHD.
On a related note: many autistic people suffer from forms of dyspraxia that make writing by hand physically unpleasant in addition to the ouput being hard to read.
Personally I like using pen and paper for dumb sketching because it helps me persist mental models in case I get distracted. But I find it really tedious for anything that requires any serious amount of information density or permanence. I've always avoided taking notes in classes because writing by hand felt tedious and slow, and typing created too many distractions if it was socially acceptable (or even allowed) at all.
I still flinch whenever someone asks me to take notes because even the process of transforming live conversations into serial form requires so much processing I can't fully pay attention to what's actually being said and risk losing track.
